If the moon landing was faked...

For the second time I say ...

These types of photos are NOT the same thing as taking a picture of
Mars or Venus from the surface of the Moon, both of these objects are
fairly dim.

Try capturing Mars and a 100 Watt light bulb, say 10 feet away, in the
same frame; that is much closer to what you are talking about.

You do need to do this to replicate taking a picture of Venus from the
surface of the Moon.

You don't seem to understand that the intensity of light decreases as
the distance squared.
You are showing us two objects at great distances, so therefore they
have both lost a lot of their brightness.
This is not the case with a person standing on the Moon and taking a
photo of Venus, the Moon is much closer, while Venus is not much
closer.

All other things being equal, a light source 3 times more distant is 9
times as faint.

To replicate taking a picture of Venus while standing on the Moon you
must have a BRIGHT source of light NEAR the camera, just like I said, a
100 Watt bulb about 10 feet away.


I REPEAT ONE MORE TIME:
These types of photos are NOT the same thing as taking a picture of
Mars or Venus from the surface of the Moon.


http://lga23.tripod.com/04/04/mars_moon_3.jpg
http://lga23.tripod.com/04/04/mars_moon_4.jpg
http://lga23.tripod.com/04/04/mars_moon_5.jpg
http://lga23.tripod.com/04/04/mars_moon_6.jpg
http://lga23.tripod.com/04/04/mars_moon_7.jpg

I'd say that 'Secret237' and others of your kind are a pathetic joke,


I laugh at you Brad, because you never seem to consider that you may be
the joke and not others.

I fully understand that without an atmospheric buffer that's acting as
a photon filter that predictably reacts with other elements and/or
significantly cuts the UV spectrum of what's otherwise reflected by a
given planet like Jupiter or especially that of Venus, whereas those
naked and otherwise unfiltered Kodak moments would have been offering
more than sufficient saturation of what a nearby Venus had to offer
that isn't offer anything as pixel wussy as what a star like point
source of illumination represents, as well as thereby easily having
accommodated a few other items that should also have been unavoidably
recorded as recorded much brighter than perceived by the human eye
(film has a rather nasty habit of doing just that, recording more
spectrum than the human eye can see, and that's the gospel truth via
Kodak).

"Sky Train' to Tibet" TRAVEL July 30, 2006 THENEWSTRIBUNE.COM - Page 10

by: ELIZABETH DALZIEL/THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.thenewstribune.com/advent...-5264954c.html
or try either of these two:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...07-24-13-34-02
w/o near-UV blocking filter nor even a UV-a cutoff or secondary
PhotoShop moderation:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/p...LA TE=DEFAULT

Hardly any local pollution, obviously dry, cold and otherwise clear
air, with lots of the expected secondary/recoil of those pesky
near-blue photons to deal with, as due to all of the extra available
UV-a. Gosh, I should have to wonder as to how much greater UV-a energy
is available while on the moon, and of what's otherwise getting so
efficiently reflected off the 0.8 albedo of Venus that has got 2600+
w/m2 of raw solar spectrum that includes a good amount of UV-a to work
with?

By your all-knowing LLPOF standards of "so what's the difference",
obviously all of the private astronomy images of our physically dark
moon and of including other planets and even at times a few of those
bluish hot stars are all phony. You're even calling team KECK liars
because, several of their members and associates have such private
images to contribute.

I'd recently asked of lord Bookman; If I'm so "world-class on
EVERYTHING", then why am I continually asking so many questions?

Clearly this Usenet land or anti-think-tank that's so mainstream status
quo boxed doesn't actually care about humanity or the global warming
environment, much less about various other truths nor hardly
consideration as to ETs having existed/coexisted on Venus. It's as
though this Usenet cesspool of conditional physics and
infomercial-science is the actual born-again form of Satan's hell on
Earth.

Folks here (including Jewish Democrats) seem rather more than willing
to having the likes of our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush) encharge,
while otherwise ready and willing to having the likes of any Christ put
on stick at the drop of another yarmulke.

On the other hand, you folks could have offered us your best swag as to
what seems most likely or at least works within the regular laws of
physics, and otherwise can be at least somewhat scientifically
replicated without our having to rely upon your pagan NASA/Apollo
infomercial koran. And you could thereby stop with your topic/author
stalking, bashings and/or banishment treatment that's usually involves
your continually hijacking this and of other similar topics into your
"alt.fan.art-bell and alt.usenet.kooks" cesspools of disinformation and
mainstream damage control.
-
Brad Guth


wrote:
For the second time I say ...

These types of photos are NOT the same thing as taking a picture of
Mars or Venus from the surface of the Moon, both of these objects are
fairly dim.

Try capturing Mars and a 100 Watt light bulb, say 10 feet away, in the
same frame; that is much closer to what you are talking about.

You do need to do this to replicate taking a picture of Venus from the
surface of the Moon.

You don't seem to understand that the intensity of light decreases as
the distance squared.
You are showing us two objects at great distances, so therefore they
have both lost a lot of their brightness.
This is not the case with a person standing on the Moon and taking a
photo of Venus, the Moon is much closer, while Venus is not much
closer.

All other things being equal, a light source 3 times more distant is 9
times as faint.
Sorry, doesn't apply unless you're talking about a star like
point-source of something that's representing less than a film grain or
CCD pixel worth of image resolution, or perhaps you're into suggesting
that the space between the moon and Venus was having an optically
polluted day.

Sirius is so freaking big and bluish/violet bright that Hubble can not
come close to photographing such without extensively over-saturating
it's CCD at using the shortest possible scan or exposure, whereas a
wussy terrestrial camera and telephoto lens works just perfectly fine
and dandy (would you like to see?).
-
Brad Guth

To replicate taking a picture of Venus while standing on the Moon you
must have a BRIGHT source of light NEAR the camera, just like I said, a
100 Watt bulb about 10 feet away.


I REPEAT ONE MORE TIME:
These types of photos are NOT the same thing as taking a picture of
Mars or Venus from the surface of the Moon.

http://lga23.tripod.com/04/04/mars_moon_3.jpg
http://lga23.tripod.com/04/04/mars_moon_4.jpg
http://lga23.tripod.com/04/04/mars_moon_5.jpg
http://lga23.tripod.com/04/04/mars_moon_6.jpg
http://lga23.tripod.com/04/04/mars_moon_7.jpg

I'd say that 'Secret237' and others of your kind are a pathetic joke,


I laugh at you Brad, because you never seem to consider that you may be
the joke and not others.

Sorry, doesn't apply unless you're talking about a star like
point-source of something that's representing less than a film grain

It does too "apply" that's what me and everybody else here is taking
about.

Sirius is so freaking big and bluish/violet bright that Hubble can
not
come close to photographing such without extensively over-saturating
it's CCD at using the shortest possible scan or exposure, whereas a
wussy terrestrial camera and telephoto lens works just perfectly fine
and dandy (would you like to see?).

1 No, I would not like to see.
2 Sirius is not all that bright, yes it is the brightest star in the
sky, next to our Sun, but compared to our Sun or Moon it is not very
bright, this is what I am trying to tell you.
3 Try having Hubble take a picture of Sirius with something bright in
the same field of view, something BRIGHT, something that produces about
2000 lumens, about what the surface of the Moon is like WHEN you are
standing on it, not from 240,000 miles away.
4 This is what we've been trying to tell you and I do not understand
why you cannot accept this concept.
There are many instances of overexposed and underexposed pictures taken
everyday, why do you seem to think this cannot be done on the Moon ??

It is the difference in brightness between one object and another like
I have said many times now as well as others, that is key.
This is also why there are no stars in the photos on the Shuttle, do
you think they are still in conspiracy mode ??
It is simply because of one object being very bright (2000 lumens) like
a space suited astronaut vs. a star with .000001 lumen.

That's it !! 2000 vs. .000001 , you figure it out.

From: - view profile
Date: Tues, Aug 1 2006 4:43 pm
Email: "
Groups: sci.space.history

Sorry, doesn't apply unless you're talking about a star like
point-source of something that's representing less than a film grain

It does too "apply" that's what me and everybody else here is taking
about.

Sirius is so freaking big and bluish/violet bright that Hubble can
not
come close to photographing such without extensively over-saturating
it's CCD at using the shortest possible scan or exposure, whereas a
wussy terrestrial camera and telephoto lens works just perfectly fine
and dandy (would you like to see?).

1 No, I would not like to see.
2 Sirius is not all that bright, yes it is the brightest star in the
sky, next to our Sun, but compared to our Sun or Moon it is not very
bright, this is what I am trying to tell you.
3 Try having Hubble take a picture of Sirius with something bright in
the same field of view, something BRIGHT, something that produces about
2000 lumens, about what the surface of the Moon is like WHEN you are
standing on it, not from 240,000 miles away.
4 This is what we've been trying to tell you and I do not understand
why you cannot accept this concept.
There are many instances of overexposed and underexposed pictures taken
everyday, why do you seem to think this cannot be done on the Moon ??

It is the difference in brightness between one object and another like
I have said many times now as well as others, that is key.
This is also why there are no stars in the photos on the Shuttle, do
you think they are still in conspiracy mode ??
It is simply because of one object being very bright (2000 lumens) like
a space suited astronaut vs. a star with .000001 lumen.

That's it !! 2000 vs. .000001 , you figure it out.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: Brad Guth

Secret237,
You're such an incest born-again liar, and that's why you and your
incest pagan friends haven't those photographic examples to share and
share alike, because you're all such liars.

As others and I've said before, you're very own physics and hard-science
that has been replicated to death, as having contributed multiple
photographs of our physically dark moon along with other items is what
more than proves that you're nothing but a liar.

Now you're even calling Einstein a liar. Way to go Secret237. What's
next? Are you going to call God a liar?
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG